Yesterday’s vote was, indeed, as President Barack Obama put it, answering ‘the Call of History.’ Unfortunately for him, it was, in the eyes of every House Republican and a significant portion of House Democrats, the wrong answer.

The run up to the vote, complete with suspense and drama, was well covered by the New York Times, culminating in an article today¹ which provides a wealth of pundit-fodder on both sides. Democrats, basking in their victory, sling hyperbole left and right: the bill heralds “a new day in America”² (yes, today is called Monday); the program will “improve the quality of life for millions of American families”³ (ok, maybe that’s not hyperbole; we’ll ask these families again in ten years); “the Civil Rights Act of the 21st Century”⁴ (I have yet to see people in the same numbers marching around Washington claiming “I have a dream” about Health Care); the bill is “liberating legislation”⁵ (liberation from what? Responsibility?).

Of course, several Republicans got in their unhelpful jabs at the bill, calling it “a fiscal Frankenstein,”⁶ “a decisive step in the weakening of the United States,”⁷ and “one of the most offensive pieces of social engineering legislation in the history of the United States.”⁸ While these descriptions may be accurate, they aren’t going to help clean up the mess created by President Obama and the Democratic majorities in Congress.

But, what of the bill? What is so utterly revolting that not a single Republican voted in favor of the bill? For one, it promises to increase spending, such that the Congressional Budget Office projects it will cost the government $938 billion dollars over 10 years. It will also place the burden of health care coverage on employers and the government, as opposed to on the individual.

Many hail this as a good thing, becoming distracted from the fact that everybody can receive Health Care, but not everybody can pay for it. They fail to remember that Health Care is, like most things in the United States of America, a capitalist enterprise. Doctors are in practice to help people get better, but they also have to make a living off of what they do. Insurance companies with their (sometimes necessarily, sometimes unnecessarily) complicated procedures and tactics for delaying payment provide enough inconvenience to the average doctor; the government’s involvement in matters can only make things worse.

In fact, the biggest criticism of the Health Care bill from people who would like to see Health Care reform is that it doesn’t do enough in the right places, for example in regulating the activity of insurance companies so that they don’t ultimately fall into the same traps as the financial industry of a year and a half ago.

However, Republicans are less infuriated with the content of the bill and the measures it would introduce than they are with the politics employed to get it passed. From a completely objective standpoint, it looks suspicious that Democratic legislators have had a burning desire to reform the Health Care system for several years through a primarily Republican Congress and, when they finally gain a majority, force the reform through without a single Republican vote, meanwhile alienating several conservative Democrats (34, to be exact). The result of the vote yesterday was 219 in favor, with 212 against, a mere 3 more than the requisite “greater than 50 percent” to claim a majority.

The fact that no Republicans voted for the bill is a rather telling indication (that Democrats are busy ignoring in their victory celebrations) that bipartisan and nonpartisan politics are out the window, thanks in no small part to President Obama and the Democrat-controlled Congress. The failure to and apparent lack of interest in involving Republicans in the legislation process is an action that has the potential to bring an abrupt end to Democrats’ majorities come November.

When all is said and done, this bill looks more and more like a small victory that Democrats can pat themselves on the back for, while ignoring the real problems and alienating almost half of the House of Representatives (and possibly their constituents). John A. Boehner, R-Ohio and the House Republican leader, noted, “The American people are angry. This body moves forward against their will. Shame on us.” Honorable Senators and Representatives of Congress Assembled, shame on you. You have, once again, failed the American people.

1 – “Obama Hails Vote on Health Care as Answering ‘the Call of History.’ http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/23/health/policy/23health.html?hp

2 – Marcy Kaptur, D-Ohio

3 – Doris Matsui, D-California

4 – James E. Clyburn, D-South Carolina

5 – Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House

6 – Paul D. Ryan, R-Wisconsin

7 – Lincoln Diaz-Balart, R-Florida

8 – Virginia Foxx, R-North Carolina

Is Greek Week really cancelled? For the spring of 2010 Greek Week was initially cancelled by the administration, but recent news from The Office of Fraternity and Sorority Affairs, the Panhellenic Council and the Interfraternity Council, as well as, from Tim Wilkinson, director of fraternity and sorority affairs, points to a leniency and concession on the part of the administration as plans have been made for a smaller, reevaluated replacement event for the spring.

Freshman pledges are buzzing over the idea of a weekend devoted to Greek Week-esqu activities. Seniors are eager to have a celebration of their last year at Lehigh on par with years of the past. While plans seem to be in the works for a shorter, smaller, pseudo-Greek Week celebration, what does the administration’s acquiescence reveal of the Greek system and the administration’s approach toward reprimanding it?

On one hand, many believe Greek events such as Greek Week need to change, be less unruly, without bias-related incidents, nudity, etc. Tim Wilkinson has been quoted saying there is “There is a clear need to re-evaluate and assess the goals, purpose and outcomes of Greek Week for the fraternity and sorority community, as well as the Lehigh Community as a whole.” After the behavior and events last year, administrators, but also students both outside and within the Greek community see the need for change.

The event this spring is supposed to transition to and precede a Fall 2010 Greek Week. Both events are hoped by the administration to bring more unity rather than the competition between houses of the past. Hopefully, this focus on unity and community building will foster more upstanding behavior.

With the cancellation of the Week, the administration seemed to be taking a firm stance against the rowdy and at times unacceptable behavior stirred by Greek events. With the plans to create a replacement activity, leniency and hope for progress, rather than punishment seems to be the administration’s new agenda. Greek, student, and administrative leaders strive to revamp the Week’s activities and purpose to curb unruly behavior and incidents, but also to instill a greater sense of community and solidarity at Lehigh. This will give new pledges and seniors an experience similar to Greek Week they would be otherwise missing if the administration did not allow for a replacement activity. Also, the charity and community service aspects of the event will continue to be incorporated, benefiting not only Lehigh, but the community surrounding it.

Overall, the approach of allowing an event similar to Greek Week to take place after the administration cancelled it, is lenient and not very demanding of the students to take responsibility for their individual or collective actions as a house. However, it allows for celebration, as well as, stimulates change and progress in the Greek system – bringing it to more respectable behavior – without punishing the entire Greek community.

Does the man who is handed a fish reap the same satisfaction of the man who caught his fish? In the general sense, do people who receive the end result appreciate it as much as those that work for it? Equality is not an issue simply between races and ethnicities; equality involves ensuring all people, regardless of origin or creed have the same opportunity to succeed in their own way.

In modern America, an amalgamation of tax credits, welfare, and social services create a culture of perpetual poverty and downward social movement amongst many Americans. Instead of relying on an antiquated patchwork of social services cobbled together over many years, I propose an overhaul of Federal Services to implement a safety net to protect all citizens.

Equality should not be limited to state of mind; it should extend to opportunities granted to all citizens. All people, regardless of origin or creed should have the ability to live with a roof over their head, adequate food and suitable living conditions to raise a family.

The first area of focus to change the face of the United States is in reforming the tax code. The United State’s tax code has become patch-worked and convoluted to the point that average Americans are at a loss in deciphering the intricacies of it. This gives a significant reward to people who can navigate the system of financial penalties. Tax credits attempt to encourage growth in facets of life the Government supports, but these largely benefit people well enough off to take advantage of them.

The other issue with the current US tax system is based in the progressive nature of it; by increasing one’s self worth, one will be taxed an additional amount. In extreme cases, this results in the government taking more money than your increased salary. The marginal tax rate1 harms the country by decreasing worker productivity and ensures people remain in poverty to the detriment of all.

If people are put into an economic state to succeed, safeguards should be created to allow citizens to experiment and fail without failing permanently. The two critical human necessities are food and housing, both of which would be the pillars of any system of safeguards. The federal government utilizes two programs to provide housing and food; housing projects and food stamps. Both of these programs have shortcomings because of the social stigmas and abuse associated with them; housing projects are considered to be bastions of poor and drug lords, while food stamps have been woefully underfunded to the point of being unable to adequately feed anyone. The answers to both of these issues are subsidized rental properties and increased value of food stamps by the government. Additionally, food stamps should have heavier restrictions and an emphasis on staple, rather than luxury food.

The last component to economic well-being is a means of advancing one’s social position. Quality education at both a primary and secondary level is vital at ensuring equality extends to all people, and not simply those privileged enough to be given it. Although reforming education is important, creating a strong technical education program at the post-secondary level is vital to national well being and social welfare. Traditional trades and crafts have fallen by the wayside in the wake of a rush to America’s colleges; professions have been marginalized by the concept of college elitism.

Free, public trade schools that offer quality education in a career path beyond “gas station attendant” gives everyone the chance to improve social standing. The other component to meaningful social well-being is basic employment; all people deserve to have an available job, regardless of circumstance. Beyond simply receiving money, public improvement projects give all people that choose to be employed employment. Jobs at or below minimum wage, coupled with housing and food assistance will create a gainful base-line of social well-being that all members of society can attain.

While this system sounds similar to welfare or government handouts, both of which are disconnected from equality, the opposite is true. In 21st Century America, Economic Freedom is invariably linked to social well-being; in the governmental sense, all people have achieved equality under the law. The difficulty comes in creating economic opportunities that all people can benefit from to break the cycle of poverty and despair.

Each year, there comes a time to discuss the topics of diversity, equality, and justice. These topics are critical to our future as a nation and as a society.

To begin, what is diversity? Common sense would suggest a definition describing an abundance of variety within a group. In a social sense, this meaning may be expanded to reference the state of having a wide variety of different people with different ideas, backgrounds, and experiences all coming together and representing themselves as equals. Few would disagree that this arrangement is representative of a diverse society. Yet for such a simple idea, why does it seem that the ultimate paradigm of social diversity constantly eludes us? This answer lies deep within our social fabric.

It is important to note that there seem to be significant differences in the various ways diversity is interpreted. Diversity is acceptance of and respect for others regardless of whether one agrees with another’s thoughts and actions. Once phrased in these terms, diversity can be described as a respect for man’s natural right of freedom. Mankind has received no greater gift than that of freedom, a right granted by nature and inalienable by any other force. Only recently has the opportunity arisen for people to escape the will of despots and tyrants to live in a state of at least partial freedom. As such, I would consider it a terrible crime to unjustly deprive another person of his or her natural rights. It is here, where diversity and freedom intersect, that the greatest dangers to our natural rights exist.

Oppression has plagued societies throughout history, and there are even contemporary instances of oppression in the United States and abroad. From injustice, a hierarchy of leadership arises in the form of special interest groups, who strive to restore natural rights to their oppressed constituencies. It is through such advocacy that rallies are formed, speeches are given, and the creation of diversity positions in schools, businesses, and governments occur. By itself, this is not inherently bad, as it may indeed serve its purpose as intended. However, one must consider the cost of such activism when left unchecked. It is easy for unbridled activism to diverge from its original purpose and move towards the oppression of their perceived former oppressor through unrealistic demands.

For this reason, it is imperative that the progression of diversity through activism and advocacy be checked with prudence. Care must be taken to ensure that both the immediate and long-term consequences of our actions serve to benefit society as a whole and do not merely further segmentation and oppression. The reasoning for this is simple: special interest groups are, by definition, specific concerns within society, which tend to seek measures which not only ensure their own liberties, but which also occasionally advocate the recession of natural rights belonging to those they consider their oppressor. Such a mindset is based in the concept that an advantage to one must result in a disadvantage to another, a belief which is simply not true. There is no reason why everyone cannot enjoy their natural rights together, as this is the true meaning of diversity.

As a conservative thinker, I have been labeled as racist, prejudiced, unjust, immoral, sexist, intolerant, and even evil in the past, an experience shared by many conservatives. After hearing these accusations, I always question whether I am actually racist, a good person, or if my beliefs are wrong. These are difficult questions to ask but after long and hard consideration, my answer became clear. My friends emigrated here from various countries around the world, subscribe to a wide variety of political views, differ in sexual orientation, practice different religions, and are of varying ethnic backgrounds. In this respect, I embrace the differences in others around me to improve on the diversity of my life. In my mind, such a realization begs the questions: who is really intolerant, the man who believes in every person’s inalienable rights or the special interest group that divides society, pushes our differences to the forefront, and calls for the alienation of others in order to further their own interests? It is good to seek diversity, but prudence must dictate our course when dealing with something as sacred as our natural rights. Our freedom is both the most powerful and delicate possession we have as human beings, and as such it is imperative that we seek change and improvements in the diversity of our society, but we must take care to let our actions to be guided by the wisdom that all of society must progress without fear of further division and oppression.

To conclude the Martin Luther King Week festivities on Tuesday evening, January 26th, the passionate Southern Baptist preacher, Dr. William H. Gray III, delivered his remarks on the life of Martin Luther King Jr. Gray addressed the history of the Civil Rights Movement and issues that continue to face America today.

“Not many people can say that they were there on that hot August day, when 250,000 Americans gathered to fight racism” He said. “When Martin Luther King Jr. came up to the podium, he launched a thirty-minute attack on all the foundations of the past 200 years of American history”.

Gray proceeded to paint the bleak picture of America before the civil rights movement, a time he referred to as “a wart on our nation’s history”. Gray credited both King’s leadership, and widespread media coverage via television to the success of the civil rights movement. “He called America to live up to its high ideals…and in about ten years, all the laws had changed, without a bloody revolution”.

“Many people refer to him as the ‘great dreamer’… but Martin was no dreamer… He was a revolutionary for justice. Two to three hours of community service on his birthday was not his goal”.

Gray explained how he came to know King as a child in Philadelphia, when King stayed at the Gray family home on a fundraising endeavor. King was referred to as a “close friend of the family”. Although it is something to be said to have been a friend of one of the most influential men in our country’s history, Gray is more than accomplished in his own right.

After earning his Master of Divinity degree from Drew Theological Seminary in 1966, he was installed as Senior Minister of the Union Baptist Church in Montclair, New Jersey. In the years following, Gray also worked as a housing activist and as an assistant professor. When he accepted a pastorship at Bright Hope Baptist Church in Philadelphia, he found a new avenue of opportunity: politics. In 1978, Gray was elected to represent Pennsylvania’s second district in the House of Representatives, rising as high as Majority Whip. After accepting a position as president and chief executive officer of the United Negro College Fund, Gray stepped down from his congressional seat in 1991. In 1994, Gray served as an advisor on Haiti to President Clinton. He now serves as an independent director on the boards of three large corporations.

While Martin Luther King Jr., and Gray’s characterization of him were certainly the focus of the speech, what was most intriguing was the question and answer period which followed the speech. Gray answered from his experiences questions that were posed by audience members about contemporary American issues; such as unemployment and education, and Haiti.

When asked “What would Martin be doing today?” Gray responded by saying, “He would be looking for injustice in the world …moving toward economic rights and world peace”. “There are many areas where he would question us” Gray said “such as black vs. white unemployment differences, education, and foreign policy”.

For a man who has been more or less paid for his opinion under different titles over the course of his career; it was disappointing to find, underneath a grand fog of eloquence, only a pattern of generalizations, botched facts, and criticism.

According to Gray, everything seems to be an issue of black and white, with no other factors involved. Yes, unemployment for blacks is 1.8 times greater than whites (nowhere near 3 times greater, as Gray and the Brown and White seem to believe)1; but this still means that there are nearly 4 times as many unem ployed whites as there are unemployed blacks. Unemployment is an issue for all of us, regardless of color.

Gray thinks that more money and more social programs are the answer to our nation’s problems, stating proudly that he “opposed Reagan’s budget cuts and worked to expand social programs.” He criticizes the public education system, stating that education funding based on property tax is unfair to inner-city (black) students, suggesting an equalization of education funding, or even funneling more of the money into inner-city school districts. Established research suggests that spending does not always have a direct effect on quality of education. According to a study conducted by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the United States is tied for the highest annual spending per student at 11,000 dollars, but has lower math, reading and science levels than other developed nations.2 Similarly, an article by the Washington Post shows that the Washington DC school district, while providing above average funding at $12,979 per student annually, still places far below average, with double the average percent of students lacking basic math skills (62%).3 In addition, according to data from the National Center for Education Statistics, annual per pupil expenditures in urban areas are nearly 25% greater than those in rural areas; and annual per pupil expenditures were greater for high poverty areas than low poverty areas.4

Finally, Gray’s comments on Haiti were most interesting, considering he is certainly an authority on the subject. During the speech, Gray stated that King would have said (about the tragedy in Haiti): “We should have done something a long time ago”. Gray blamed America for Haiti’s poverty citing a “racist trade embargo” imposed on Haiti after the country gained its independence from France in 1804.

What Gray didn’t mention however, was that the young nation of America was just following suit after the large colonial states of France, Spain and Great Britain all declared trade embargoes on Haiti; and that our young nation was also a victim of the same harsh tactic, before and after the Revolutionary War. Haiti has suffered through a long history of political instability and division, including 32 coups, which has weakened the country far more than any trade embargo ever could. Worst of all, world superpowers, such as France, Germany, and the United States, have all played God in Haitian politics, further weakening the government and lowering the country’s morale1. He also spoke of his efforts to pass a multi-billion dollar aid package to improve Haiti’s infrastructure while advisor on Haiti to President Bill Clinton.

Overall, the University made a good choice for a Martin Luther King Week keynote speaker. Gray has led a life similar to King’s, both strongly advocating for their race in the public spotlight. Who better to comment on the life and work of Martin Luther King Jr. than a close family friend, and fellow “revolutionary for justice”? That being said, Gray’s comments expose his narrow-mindedness, shortsightedness and abundantly obvious racial bias. By focusing on the differences between blacks and whites, Gray characterized whites as the enemy. His comments create more division in an America that is undergoing the healing process, trying to close the gap between blacks and whites. Typical of a politician, Gray’s solution to every problem is to throw more money at it; even when this is already being done and is not working. Anyone can look into our nation’s past and point out the problems. One would expect a man of Gray’s accomplishments and experience to offer real solutions, instead of biased criticism.

1. Martinez, L. (2010, January 29). Former Congressman recalls MLK. The Brown And White.
2. OECD. (2005, 13 09). OECD calls for broader access to post-school education and training. Education at a Glance.
3. Keating, D., & Haynes, V. D. (2007, June 10). Can D.C. Schools Be Fixed? The Washington Post.
4. Planty, M., Hussar, W., Snyder, T., Kena, G., KewalRamani, A., Kemp, J., et al. (2009). The Condition of Education 2009 (NCES 2009-081). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

Writer’s Note:
1 A good example of this is the United States’ military occupation
and re-insertion by force of former president Jean-Bertrand Aristide, after he was exiled from Haiti in a military coup in 1991, which was planned in part by Dr. William H. Gray III. Aristide was forced into exile again in 2004 after a 2004 rebellion.

On Wednesday, February 10, Lehigh had its first snow day in 8 years. For those of us living in hovels, our campus was blanketed with nearly two feet of snow over the course of Tuesday night into Wednesday evening. I have no issue with trudging to class if my university and professors demand it. I honestly have no excuse to not get myself to my classroom that is a quarter-mile down the hill from my dormitory. Students who commute and professors obviously should be held to a different standard. It would have been absurd to demand them to drive to Lehigh on the day of the blizzard. I like our school’s stringent policy regarding holidays and days off. By not giving holidays off, we discriminate against no one. If there is a holiday that you feel obligated to take off then the university, and most professors, are usually more than willing to cooperate, as I found out for Good Friday. My issue is not with the school’s reluctance to give days off but rather the administration’s inability to communicate days off well enough, especially in potentially dangerous situations like massive blizzards.

Students awoke on Wednesday to no mass email alert from President Gast or whomever announcing that school was canceled. Rather, students had to dig through two or three layers of the Lehigh University’s webpage in order to obtain this information. It’s almost as if they wanted to keep this as low-key as possible. Apparently announcing that the school is closed does bad things for the administration’s collective ego: they must pride themselves on being tough guys who demand their students and faculty to report to their posts every day. What ensued from this lack of communication from people whose job it is to communicate, was chaos. Confused teachers arrived at campus to find that there was no parking and that buildings were locked. Really Lehigh? Locking buildings for snowstorms? Is that really an emergency that warrants a response like that? I myself only found out that the university was closed from my Gryphon, who seemed to have been more informed than the heads of some departments. There is a problem with this. One can only hope a real emergency never befalls this campus.

One of the founding tenants of liberty is man should bear the fruits of his labor; that is, a person should be entitled to keep all of the money that he or she earns. Current OBAMACare legislation runs in the face of liberty, as the marginal tax increases have lasting and ignored ramifications.

While it seems difficult to connect “Penalized for Working More” to National Health Care, there exists a direct correlation. A January 13th CATO.org article identifies the role that marginal tax increases play in any future health care proposals. In a nutshell, a Marginal Tax Rate is the amount of additional tax one would be required to pay if he or she made one additional dollar.

At several points of income, a person would lose money by working more through progressive taxation and reduced subsidies; the article cites examples of “Under the House bill, a family of four starting at $43,670 that earns an additional $1,100 would see its total income fall by $870.”

And THIS is Change I can believe in.

Here at the Lehigh Patriot, we have tremendous respect for our colleagues at the Brown and White.  They provide the Lehigh community with a biweekly feast of the news and analysis that keeps our campus dialogue informed and vibrant. Professors, administrators and prospective Lehigh families alike view the Brown and White as a window into the minds that make up our student body.  For better or worse, they speak for all of us.

It’s a small miracle, then, that the Brown and White was there to give us 800 words to describe the operating hours of a new off-campus deli.  From this thrilling investigative piece, we learned the following:

Samantha Petner, ’11, is a frequent patron of Dave’s Deli.

“I am kind of boring, I just like turkey on a Kaiser roll, but Dave’s really has the best sandwiches,” Petner said.

Kelly Sprague, ’11, goes to Dave’s Deli about once a week and is a big fan of the Chicken Ranchero.

Hannah Gobetz, ’11, does not consider herself a regular at Dave’s Deli, but she said she found the Chicken Caesar Wrap to be quite delicious.

This intrepid reporter didn’t stop there.  She managed to use “the internet” to uncover a startling fact:

Part of the deli’s secret, according to its Web site, is that it uses “the best” meats and cheeses.

While the news division of the Brown and White works to hold local establishments accountable to the highest standards of deli meats and cheeses, the lifestyle section reliably churns out impeccably sourced universal claims about the social lives of Lehigh students.  In a recent issue, they even tracked down an expert financial analyst to talk about the bar scene:

Brooke Wiener, ’10, said the current economic conditions haven’t impacted the bar scene.

“It’s not necessarily about the economy,” she said. “It’s just being smart about your money.”

In addition to economic issues, the Brown and White is always there to cover Lehigh’s attempts to be environmentally friendly. One such story gives us a great deal of detail about a “new eco-friendly printer” to be used in Rauch. If you are not excited yet, you should be:

Buskirk called Lehigh’s acquisition of the trial a rare opportunity. Few other universities have access to the ColorQube’s unique technology.

In case you were wondering, the ColorQube has other benefits:

In its brochure, Xerox says that the ColorQube can print up to 85 pages per minute…

For the printer aficionados in the crowd, the article continues to explain all of the gory details about printing technology that most of us never thought to ask:

“The ColorQube’s ink blocks only leave behind a small black spot of biodegradable wax that resembles a Necco wafer,” Buskirk said.

For all of its heady intellectualism, the heart and soul of the Brown and White is found on its editorial pages.  Here, the senior editors demonstrate that conventions of grammar, diction and syntax are merely obstacles to telling a unique and heartfelt story about how sad they are to be leaving Lehigh.  Some variation of the following statement (from the 10/20/09 publication) can probably be found in every Brown and White Edit Desk dating back to 1894:

The end of this magic experience is on the decline, and I for one am going to find all means of using Lehigh to get the best experience possible. I hope you all do the same.

Yes.  Everybody, please do…that.

—

(Editorial Correction:  The printed version of The Patriot incorrectly stated that the Brown and White Edit Desk referred to in this article was published on 11/13/09.  The correct publication date is 10/20/09.  The editorial staff regrets this mistake.)

Alumni often visit Lehigh to give lectures, speak on panels, or advise students. However, Lehigh students take many of these opportunities for granted. Attendance for most speaker series is often limited to overachievers and students prodded by their professors.

The question for everyone else becomes, “do I want to play another hour of Xbox or see a lecture in the Perella Auditorium?”

What is lost in this consideration is the value of Lehigh lectures. Alumni provide a view into the future. They can tell you what your life will be like, where you will work, and how much you will be paid. They can also explain some of their mistakes and detail how you can do better than they did, faster.

This article will focus on a few of those missed opportunities. Specifically, I will forward you alumni insights from the ISE Panel discussion and an independent interview with Daniel Mulholland.

“Become a student of what you do.”

Most students will graduate into jobs that require significant training past classroom education. Steve Senkowski, former executive of Armstrong, elaborated, “learning to learn is an important skill.” The best employees learn every step of their career. You must ask yourself, “Can I do the entire project from start to finish without conflict?”

“Take a job for the most valuable experience.”

There will be jobs out there, with great starting offers and many perks that lack substance. Tom Cassidy, Director at Bayada Nurses, took his first job at UPS for the extensive learning experience in industrial engineering. Although it was not the highest paying job, it was the job where he learned the most. This education translated into a quicker path to more senior, higher paying jobs.

“Never accept the initial solution.”

When working, you will often find quick solutions to arduous problems. However, it is your responsibility to strive for excellence and reject the first answers. Gary Whitehouse, Dean at Arizona State, explained that even if the statistical distributions match, you still must consider the source of attributes for your data.

“Never burn a bridge.”

Since the world is small and bad news spreads like wild fire, you should keep relationships from spiraling out of control. No matter how bad things get, according to Steve, you should end on a positive note with every relationship.

“Know every part of your organization.”

Daniel Mulholland, former president of Baker Chemical, advises you to discover each division of your organization. If you start out in sales, as he did, do not stay there. You should take every opportunity to do different jobs. Demand differentiation. Dan moved vertically from sales to information systems to manufacturing to administration to marketing before he became an executive and eventually president. It was the diagonal moves across his company that set him apart from everyone else during times of promotion.

“Leadership is getting others to want what you want.”

Students, and even some executives, confuse the terminology of manager with leader. Although, Merriam-Webster might tell you that they are synonyms, there is a distinct difference. Managers only maintain the status quo and keep employees on track. On the contrast, leaders are agents of change. They are driven to distinction. They improve their companies. Dan detailed that leaders think about the team and results count. The only way to ensure those results is to get people to like what you like and want what you want. That way you can lead and inspire instead of managing and delegating.

For those of you that enjoy learning about your future. There will be more insights available. In an academic setting, you can join the leadership minor to hear first hand from alumni in your classes. In a club setting, the National Society of Leadership and Success will have this information available as well. Also, keep posted on the Patriot website. I will upload similar content soon.

The debate over health care reform is ugly, and the victims are the American people. We have a 2000+ page bill which most legislators have not even read. Health care reform is being held back by partisan quibbles that have only gotten worse as the sides have polarized.

The heart of bipartisanship is compromise by meeting in the middle. Inherently, each side must give up a little if they want to get anything. The problem with the way compromise has manifested in this debate is that each side has gutted their opponent’s reforms. Democrats have eliminated tort reform and won’t allow insurance to be sold across state lines. The public option has been neutered to the point where it will hardly cover anyone. The polarization is so great that an olive branch is no longer possible. The bill doesn’t contain provisions to prevent illegal immigrants from getting free health care. Republicans say that means illegal immigrants are covered. Democrats say that means they’re not. Nothing gets done.

The path to compromise is revolting to most, but it must be done. The trigger to the public option is the key to an effective bipartisan bill.

Rather than have both sides cannibalize the reforms of the other, let’s split the bill in two parts. The first part is the Republican reforms, to fix the system we have. The second is the Democratic reforms, most notably a robust public option to throw the current system out. The third and most crucial part is the trigger.

The Republican part of the bill can fix the current system in a way that’s not been tried before. The state of health care has gotten steadily worse. The only tested solutions have been more regulation and bigger government. Even the reforms proposed by Republicans are compromised. Everyone wants to cover more of the uninsured. The free market way of doing that would make the market freer, so costs could drop and more people can choose to buy health care. The Republican reforms can include tort reform and deregulation of insurance plans.

Health insurance companies are monopolies. No, really. The Supreme Court ruled it is perfectly within Congress’s power to bust them, but Congress has been too frail to act. They wanted to improve insurance companies by letting them grow big, so that they can take advantage of the economies of scale. The problem is that the free market fails to be free in this scenario. Choice decreases, competition decreases, and prices skyrocket. Americans spend over twice as much on health care than any other country. Without this reform, any effort to increase competition is a joke. Free market idealists argue that the market should take care of this, but it has not occurred yet.

Interestingly, the lack of reform has been supported by the Democrats. When Hillary Clinton tried to get major health care reform passed during her husband’s administration, the industry funded the famous Harry and Louise ads that helped ruin public opinion and sink reform. Clinton learned her lesson and made a deal with the devil.

The Democratic part of the bill can be whatever they want. If they want to reduce drug patent life, tax small business, or punish drug company execs, let them do it. They can make a robust public option: Medicare for all, available even if you already have insurance.

The trick is where the two bills get sewn together. Both sides can work together to agree when the judgment has been made. The threat of the public option will also incentivize the industry to fix things.

Democrats and Republicans are in the mindset of a doctor. They’ve taken the Hippocratic oath to “Do no harm.” Legislators need to realize they are not doctors. The heart of my bipartisan bill is this: let the other side hurt the American people, because my reforms will be here to catch them. The Democrats believe the Republican reforms will be disastrous. Don’t worry about it. If you’re right, you’ve just proven them wrong, and you can catch them with the soft and fluffy public option and gloat all around town. Republicans think the current system isn’t beyond repair. So repair it. Then you’ll never have to trigger the public option and you’ve just proven the socialists wrong. Find me a better nail in the coffin for Obama’s reelection.

Effective compromise is built on agreement. As much as everyone disagrees, they share one common belief that can never be shaken, “I’m right and you’re wrong.” I feel healthier already.